in america today. because when small businesses don't have customers, and customers don't have money in their pocket. and people don't have jobs to pay their bills, bankruptcy judges are very, very busy. it is one thing for the majority to oppose these identify december the president brought here 89 days ago. that's their prerogative and their right. but it's quite another to refuse to even put these ideas up for a vote. so i would say, mr. speaker, to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's take this moment, let's take this bill, let's take this day to put on the floor of the house legislation that would postpone and cancel the tax increase on middle class americans that's due in 25 days, let's not have it. and let's extend jobless benefits for those who are diligently trying to find a job

in this difficult economy. let's find time to do something for the american people today. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, while this body wastes its time debating yet another bill that does nothing to create jobs or help the middle class, the american people are looking for action from us. we need to stop supporting handouts for wealthy corporations and pass an extension of the payroll tax and under employment benefits heedly. despite saying for months if not years that tax cuts are their most important priority, the majority's failed to act on a critical extension of the payroll tax.

even though it would save the average american family $1,500 a year. 400,000 jobs will be lost if we do not pass this payroll tax extension. the majority's also failed to act on extending unemployment insurance benefits. even though u.i. have kept 900,000 kids out of poverty last year. in fact, the number of americans in poverty would have doubled last year if the unemployment insurance benefits had not been extended. and at least 200,000 jobs will be lost if the majority blocks an extension of benefits. but instead of acting on these two important priorities, what does the republican majority spend its time on? we have seen them protect wasteful tax breaks for corporate jets and race horse owners, corporate subsidies for big agriculture, big oil, special tax treatment for wall

street millionaires and billionaires and now this misguided bill which would undermine our regulatory system to the detriment of everything from food safety to protecting the environment without doing anything to create jobs. time and again the majority has shown that they will go to any length to side with the wealthiest 1% of americans while turning their backs on middle class and working families. to take one more example, this past week democrats introduced a payroll tax cut for 160 million people, offset by raising taxes on 350,000 millionaires. but the republican majority instead put forward a package that would slash the federal work force, raise medicare premiums, curtail the social safety net. instead of just having americans' wealthiest families pay their fair share of taxes, the majority would rather see more lost public jobs and less support for middle class families. all in order to continue a tax

cut that independent economists agree is critical for our economy. keep in mind, the republican mantra in recent memory has always been that tax cuts never, never need to be offset and a year ago they said the same of the payroll tax cut. they've now changed their tune. american families deserve better leadership than this. right now congress should be doing everything in its power to create jobs, rebuild our schools and infrastructure, support our small businesses, get our economy moving again. that means passing an extension and expansion of the payroll tax cut, it means passing an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits. working to create jobs, that's our job. we do not have the luxury to waste america's time, catering to the wealthiest interests in our society and considering ill-conceived bills such as this one. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. i am really confused. i know that many of my republican colleagues have signed a pledge that said that never will they raise taxes on anybody, the grover norquist pledge, i think it's a silly idea to sign such a thing, but most have done that. but yet it does seem that when it comes to middle class tax cuts there's this little hesitation going on. do we really mean cutting taxes for the middle class? do we mean preserving tax cuts for the middle class?

or are we just talking about the wealthiest americans? right now if we don't move ahead with extending the payroll tax cut, that's what most -- that's what all of working families pay, their payroll taxes. you know, we hear, oh, the wealthy, that the wealthy are paying all the income taxes. yeah, most people would like to pay income taxes. but they definitely pay payroll taxes if they're working and they're risking 160 million americans who would not get tax relief if we don't extend the payroll tax cut for working families. and so we need to do that before we leave, but instead we're talking about some way to stop any kind of regulations, further health and safety regulations, making it hard to do that. i got a letter from someone talking about the unemployment

insurance and extending those benefits. he says, this is from john in my district, i'm a desert storm veteran and lost my job october 21, 2010. i've been drawing unemployment and now on extended unemployment benefits. i, like millions of americans, would rather be working 80 hours a week if possible. the job market is scary but what's worse is the thought that we might be without that last bit of a safety net come the end of december. can i have -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. schakowsky: another minute would be great. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. schakowsky: the job market is scary but what's worse is the thought that we might be without that last bit of a safety net come the end of december. these benefits for many is the difference between having a roof over your head and living on the streets. he says, i just hope you can encourage your fellow house members to put the livelihood of

millions of americans above their petty politics, above the petty politics. that's what we're facing right now. if we extend unemployment insurance benefits it's not just good for john and his family, it's not just good for the hundreds of thousands of people that would lose their unemployment benefits, over 500,000 in january, it is also good for the economy. every dollar generates $1.52 in economic activity in the country. these are the things that the american people at this holiday season are worrying about, are afraid of. he calls it scary. he's afraid. and we're dealing with this pettiness right now. let's get over it and on with the business of the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to my fellow rules committee -- rules member, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes.

mr. bishop: thank you. i thank you for the time, and, mr. speaker, i will apologize in advance for actually talking on topic here. in 1791 the second session of congress, john page was a congressman from virginia. and he objected to his peers who wanted to leave and let the designation of postal routes be left to the president. they trusted the president, justifiably, but john page threatened his colleagues by saying that if we do so he will move to adjourn and leave all the objects of legislation to the president's soul consideration and direction -- sole consideration and direction. the issue at hand back in 1971 -- 1791 was not what roads should take place even though they did have an economic impact. the issue was who should designate those routes. because every rule and regulation is by definition a legislative function. it is not a function of administration that should be given to the president or the bureaucracies that are created because of it. it is a congressional function that we do not take -- function.

that we do not take the time to make the details in our particular piece of legislation. when we simply act -- ask in our legislation that a secretary in a department shall have the power to write rules and regulations and then leave it at that, we are abrogating our responsibility. the country of origin labeling sounded like a great idea. even though it was passed before i became a member of congress, it was my eighth year in congress before they were able to write the rules because congress did not take the time and effort to go through the details of understanding what we were doing when we were passing legislation. the states, my home state, has administrative review committee that reviews every rule and regulation because these are rules and regulations that our people must obey and if they don't, they are subject to jail and fines and it is done by a nameless executive bureaucracy that has no accountable to the people by ballot box, nor do

they have it to us. we can simply saying, well, i'm sorry about the situation, they over there did it, instead of taking the time to do our responsibility. i'm told that we need experts over in the executive branch to do this. the founding fathers designed this situation in this country so that people could make judgments for themselves. the idea of needing experts only came into the late 1800 and early 1900's' when an individual who became president wrote a book about congress and he claimed that balance of power, this separation of responsibilities was in his words constitutional witch craft. from that time on we decided to abrogate legislative responsibility and simply give it to the other branch. like it's one of those simple things. congress has passed 16 job bills in the house. and sent them over where the democratic majority in the senate has refused to deal with any of those bills. congress is now also dealing with a variety of regulation bills which harm our ability to be economically competitive and harm our ability to actually

build new jobs and once again the democrat majority in the senate has failed to do that. this is our time and responsibility to look forward to this situation, to take our role and responsibility and pass this particular bill because, like john page said, it is our job, it's our responsibility, we should accept that responsibility. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, may i inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers? mr. nugent: yes, i do, one more. ms. slaughter: all right. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. as i sit on the house floor here i listen to the debate and i hear a lot of conversations that are off topic. we're talking on this side of the aisle about payroll taxes and unemployment. extensions. this is really a conversation

about regulations that effect american businesses' ability to compete, expand, grow and create jobs. this reins act is about holding members of congress, elected men and women, accountable to the people who sent them here to do their work. not to empower bureaucrats in washington to pass rules that kill jobs all across this country. just yesterday there was a press release in my district where one of our coal power plants has given notice that they're going to lay off 74 people because of regulations coming from this town. and you talk a lot about the 99%. these are part of the 99%. people that are now not going to have a job because of regulations and rules that are shutting down our power sources in wisconsin. and so you can advocate for unemployment and i'm happy that you're doing it because your rules and regulations and the policies that you advocate for

are cogs 74 people in my district -- costing 74 people in my district to go on unemployment. that's unacceptable. lease advocate for prow growth policies that -- pro-growth policies that are going to help businesses, entrepreneurs and manufacturers to compete in a global competition. if we continue down this path we are going to see more businesses go overseas, with more jobs for the people that work in our districts. so with that i think we should all have a real conversation about the reins act and not about payroll tax and unemployment extension. with that i'd yield back, mr. speaker, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i have no other speakers, we're ready to close. ms. slaughter: all right, i'm prepared to close as well. mr. speaker, the majority -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: goes beyond their crusade of government protections for our clean air and water, safed into and workplaces -- safe food and

workplaces. not only is the majority not passed a payroll tax holiday, meaning even though we're still struggling to recover from a recession, the average american family will see $1,000 increase in their taxes on january. they've refused so far to extend unemployment benefits for the $2 -- 2.1 million americans whose benefits will run out in the coming months if congress does not act. congress has never allowed emergency extended benefits to expire, when the jobless rate has been anywhere close to its current level of 8.6%. some republicans like to argue that it gives the american people a disincentive to work. but how can they take jobs that don't exist? most people unemployed in this country would much rather get a job but they can't find one. there is still roughly 6.5 million fewer jobs in the economy today than when the great recession started in

2007. so we're supposed to let them and their children starve or face possible eviction or foreclosure? all of the money that the unemployed receive in benefits goes right back in the economy when they buy groceries, clothes and health care. the economic policy institute estimates that allowing those federal unemployment benefits to expire would hurt consumer demand and thereby costing the u.s. economy 528,000 jobs. and the nonpartisan congressional budget office has indicated that providing extended unemployment benefits is one of the most effective job creation strategies available during a period of high joblessness stating, quote, households receiving unemployment benefits pend tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this timely and cost-effective in spurring economic activity and employment, end quote.

the choices couldn't be any clearer facing us today. that's why, mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question iloffer an amendment requiring we vote on an unemployment benefit extension and vote on the payroll tax holiday before we leave for holiday. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no, defeat the previous question so we can do the right thing for working families and the millions of americans looking for jobs. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: the raines act, this act that we're talking about would -- the reins act,

this act that we're talking would help restore democracy that our founders intended. profound words. while discussing regulatory reform, one from the enterprise institute and contributor to "forbes" magazine said that reaffirming congress' accountability to voters for agency's most costly rules is a basic principle of good government. and jonathan adler, professor of law at western school of law said in a congressional hearing earlier this year that the reins act offers a promising mechanism for disciplining federal regulatory agencies in enhancing, enhancing congressional accountability for federal regulations. the reins acts brings accountability back to the regulatory process. i would agree that some regulations are unnecessary. we all want clean air and clean water. there's no doubt we need that. we need safe -- safe and healthy environment.

we need safe food. if we want to protect ourselves and our familieses, regulations at what cost? through the rulemaking process, the e.p.a. has put a new burdensome standard on water quality in florida alone. the knew marek nutrient rule e.p.a. wants to overtake, overtake the state's water system and because there are washington bureaucrats trying to create d.c. solutions for florida, the requirements they set, scientifically, scientifically impossible to reach given our state's natural phosphorus levels in our waters. complinets will require an investment of billions of -- compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars to the florida taxpayers, of course, having a new text levy on all floridians, the e.p.a. rulemaking will have statewide costs ranging from $3.1 billion

to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years. let me put that in perspective. florida's total budget is only $64 billion annually. the reins act is what people in florida and what people in the country need. to keep the executive's rulemaking in check. you know, we heard about a number of issues on this house floor. we heard about as it relates to unemployment in the employment tax holiday. the issue is not what's in front of us today. it's about the reins act. it's about getting government off the backs of people. it's about making congress accountable for the actions of the agencies that have their authority granted through congress. it's not the other way around. regulatory agencies don't enact laws for congress. congress enacts laws. congress enacts and gives the

authority to those that regulate, but congress can't walk away from its authority to oversee the rules, particularly the major rules, that are promulgated by these agencies, that are costing us jobs, that are costing us billions of dollars every year. you've heard about it from all of my colleagues that spoke on this side of the aisle. you know, i don't know when congress lost its way. representative bishop talked about it years and years ago. but congress did lose its way. it's so much easier just to pass a law and say, you know what, let the regulatory folks figure out how it will shake out in the end. that's not what we were elected to do. we were elected not only to pass laws but to make sure that the regulations proposed by those agencies that have the authority from this congress is responsible to the people. we need to be responsible to the people that elected us, not the other way around, not responsible to bureaucrats in

washington, d.c. it's what i hear from all the businesses in my district. it's what i hear from the people that i represent. they want government to get out of the way. not end all regulations like you hear some of my friends across the aisle say. that's not what we're talking about, but we are talking about congressional review. before it actually comes to pass that we stand up as a body and say, you know what, this is just not good for america. keystone pipeline is a perfect example of a jobs bill. they keep talking about the lack of jobs bills. had keystone pipeline come to fruition, that the president has pushed off until 2013, that's 25,000 immediate jobs. immediate jobs to create and construct that pipeline. and 100,000 new jobs within the areas of texas and louisiana as it relates to the processing of that oil. last time i looked, canada was a friend. we buy oil from countries that hate us.

and here we turn our back. and you know what canada said. china is ready to step in and help them out. is that really what we want or do we want to bring jobs to america? mr. speaker, with all that's been said, we're to the point where we need to talk about regulations and that's what this bill does. it allows seven amendments that are germane to come to the floor, three republicans and five democratic amendments. and, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postpone questions will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2405. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 189, h.r. 2405, a bill to re-authorize certain provisions of the public health service act and the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act relating to public health preparedness and countermeasure development, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended? mr. pitts: yes, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, h.r. 2405, introduced by my colleague, mike rogers from michigan, would re-authorize certain provisions of the project bioshield act of 2004 and the pandemic and all-hazards preparedness act of 2006. these two laws help protect the united states against attacks from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. project bioshield authorizes -- authorize funds for the purpose of medical countermeasures to the special reserve fund and enables the secretary of health and human services to authorize the emergency use of medical product.

pahpa created the biodefense advanced research and development authority within h.h.s. to help with the development of medical countermeasures and ensure communications between h.h.s. and the developers of the medical countermeasures. it created a position at h.h.s. to lead the government's efforts on the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons preparedness and response with the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. some of these key provisions expired at the end of f.y. 2011. since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we have become more aware of the dangers our country faces and the links to which some may go to inflict harm on us. these provisions must be re-authorized, and i would urge

all members to support this critical piece of legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i would yield to myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to rise in support of h.r. 2455, the pandemic and all-hazards preparedness re-authorization act of 2011. this bill is an opportunity to rebuild a public health infrastructure. we all know very well our nation continues to face threats that require an ongoing commitment to public health and emergency preparedness. and that's why over the past 10 years this congress has placed a high priority on biodefense. in 2004 we passed the project bioshield act which with tremendous bipartisan support, democrats and republicans worked together to establish a process that would help our nation respond to bioterrorism threats and attacks. we then identified some

shortfalls and in 2006 worked to amend the program by passing the pandemic and all-hazardous preparedness act, also known as papa. it provided the health and human services with the resources necessary to rapidly develop drugs and vaccines to protect citizens from various medical incidents, whether as accidental such as h 1 n 16rbings or others which are deliberate such as anthrax attacks. as established in both the 2004 project bioshield act and the 2006 papa, codified and expanded the government's support for public health preparedness. as a result of these bills and the investments that followed, our nation is better equipped to respond to bioterrorism threats and attacks. now, h.r. 2405 would help build on that progress. the bill further facilitates the development of medical countermeasures and bolsters and the public health

infrastructure. it strengthens and the clarifies the position of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response who has led the federal government's efforts and attempts to improve coordination and accountability. and i was especially supportive of the bill's provisions to identify and dedicate the f.d.a.'s role in hazardous events. h.r. 2405 enhanced the flexibility of f.d.a. while strengthening their emergency use administrative functions. and these provisions are a significant step forward on a framework for f.d.a. to develop better policies and guidance in emergency situations. in addition, i was appreciative of the bipartisan effort to address the special needs of peed at rick populations -- pediatric populations in emergency situations. it was clear there was some gaps in our nation's public health emergency strategy for children and i'm confident we took an appropriate approach for filling in these gaps. so i really want to thank representatives mike rogers and gene green and their staff who offered the base bill and continued to work to strengthen

its provisions. i want to thank the staff of the energy and commerce committee. of course, my chairman, mr. pitts, who have collaborated in a bipartisan manner to further enhance the bill. they've worked hard to accomplish the goals of our members as well as stakeholders and so strengthen its provisions. it's been a good bipartisan process and one that should be emulated in our full committee and subcommittee as well. i ask members to support h.r. 2405 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, a prime sponsor of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. pitts, and thank you for your leadership on the committee, to allow this bill to come to the floor today. and good news, mr. speaker, this bill is bipartisan, it's fiscally responsible and it will make a policy impact on our nation's national security. it's been more than 10 years since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that followed and while

we sleant a successful terrorist attack on u.s. soil, our enemies are still working every day to kill innocent americans. today the threat of bioterrorism remains very real. earlier this year the bipartisan grand talent commission washed -- warned the united states is still, quote, vulnerable to a large scale biological atarks end quote. thankfully we have spent the last decade preparing for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. by developing and stockpiling numerous medical countermeasures to protect american citizens in case of such an attack. because of these efforts we now have numerous vaccines and treatments in the strategic national stockpile that will save lives and thousands of lives in the event of such an attack. but we have more work to do to be prepared. h.r. 2405 is a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill that will re-authorize successful biodefense programs at the department of health and human services while also making some key changes to our nation's

biodefense strategy. in 2004 congress passed project bioshield which created a market guarantee that prompted the private sector to develop countermeasures for the federal government. because the government is the only purchaser of these countermeasures, it was important to show the private sector we were committed to developing and eventy purchasing these products for stockpile. project bioshield's special reserve fund has been a critical tool to protect our country against an attack. and this legislation will re-authorize the fund for five additional years -- additional years, to continue the federal government's commitment to procurement of countermeasures. this reaffirms that the strategic research fund should only be used for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear countermeasure procurement. this is a national security priority and these funds should never be diverted for other purposes. in 2006 congress created a biomedical advanced research and

development authority in which helped bridge what many termed the valley of death that had prevented many countermeasure developers from being successful. barta -- barda was created because most of the countermeasures do not yet exist and medical countermeasure development is a risky, expensive and lengthy process. barda bridges the funding gap between early stage research and the ultimate procurement of products from the s.r.f. fund for the national stockpile. h.r. 2405 re-authorizes barda for five years. in 2006 we also created a unique set of public health programs to assist hospitals, local public health departments and first responders in their preparedness efforts. under h.r. 2405, these programs had been re-authorized for an additional five years so that we can continue to strengthen our preparedness infrastructure, so critical in the prevention of -- in dealing with any possible

attack. h.r. 2405 also strengthens the role of the h.h.s. assistance secretary for preparedness and response. we need to have one leader at h.h.s. that coordinates countermeasure development and stockpiling across all agencies. this bill does that. and, finally, this bill includes important reforms to the food and drug administration, the f.d.a. the bill strengthens f.d.a.'s role in reviewing medical products for national security priorities. i believe that if we -- we've identified biological threats and spent millions in taxpayer funds to develop countermeasures, the f.d.a. must take a lead role in getting these countermeasures approved. while we can use many of these products without f.d.a. approval through an emergency use authorization, the f.d.a. licenser is hugely important and sends an important signal to developers of these new, hopefully, technologies and immunizations working on the next generation of medical

countermeasures. simply put, medical countermeasures for national security priorities cannot continue to be treated the same way as the next viagra or lipper to. f.d.a. must accelerate their review and approval. it's important for members to know that this legislation, again, is fiscally responsible. h.r. 2405 does not create any new federal programs or increase spending in any existing programs. i'm pleased c.b.o. has confirmed this in their score. h.r. 2405 creates a five-year re-authorization of the biodefense programs we know are working. while making critical policy changes at h.h.s. to strengthen countermeasure development and public health preparedness. i'd like to thank my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee for their hard work on this bipartisan legislation. mr. upton and mr. pitts, mr. waxman, mr. pallone, and their staffs have spent several months helping us develop a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. i want to especially thank my friend, gene green, sue myrick

and anna eshoo in their work to advance this legislation and appreciate your work and counsel along the way, mr. green. i hope we never have to e.s.a. use these countermeasures, mr. speaker, but they are critical to the assurance that the public will be protected from an attack and we must strengthen our national stockpile, simply put, we must always be prepared. i would urge the strong support of h.r. 2405 and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd now like to yield to one of the authors of the bill, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my colleagues and just a personal aside, this probably won't be the headline on the 6:00 news tonight around the country because we're actually agreeing on something and i think i can associate myself with the remarks of my

colleague, the primary sponsor of this bill, as well as he can associate with mine and mr. pallone and mr. pitts, that i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2405, the pandemic and all-hazards preparedness re-authorization act of 2011. which will re-authorize certain provisions of the project bioshield active 2004 and the pandemic and all-has ars preparedness act of 2006. this legislation was initially passed by congress to help the u.s. develop medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism agents to provide a neckism iner to federal acquisition of these newly developed countermeasures. our nation remains vulnerable to these threats because many of the vaccines and medicines do not exist. developing a stockpile of these countermeasures requires time, resources and research, all of which will be provided under this legislation before us

today. as my colleagued said from michigan, it may not be the best seller on the market like some of the other pharmaceuticals, but this is something that our country needs. h.r. 2405 is important to me too because the university of texas medical branch, galveston national laboratory, is literally in the backyard of our congressional district. the galveston national lab is the only b.l.s.-4 lab located on a university campus. at the lab scientists conduct research and develop they are miss, vaccines and diagnosic tests for naturally occurring emerging disease such as sars and avian influenza. this is exactly the type of research we hope to encourage under the pan it democratic and all-hazards act. as original co-sponsor of h.r. 2405 with mr. rogers, i'm real pleased how quickly we've moved this legislation and i want to thank mr. rogers, mr. upton, ranking member waxman and

pallone, along with our chair of our health subcommittee, mr. pitts, mrs. myrick, ms. eshoo and mr. mark area to their work on 2405 and i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield now to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2405, the pandemic, all-hazardeds preparedness act. but i want to take this time to discuss a critical health issue that congress must address before the year is out. fixing the sustainable growth rate issue. medicare stgses -- physicians are facing steep reimbursements can cuts of nearly 30% and to let these go into effect, these cuts, will harm not only them

and their employees, but our seniors as well. and that's why i've been a long-time supporter of efforts to postpone s.g.r. cuts and continue to work on a permanent fix. we here in the house passed legislation to do just that through our version of health care reform. and here we are again, just weeks from the next scheduled cut, with an opportunity to craft a bipartisan solution to an issue that both sides of the aisle say they care about. but there is no workable plan in sight. instead it is reported that any fix on the house side will come with indefensible strings attached. pitting doctors' salaries against seniors' benefits. federal workers and important cost-saving prevention programs. to be clear, s.g.r. must be fixed permanently, but the idea of stripping other critical health care funding to pay for it, ideas that will not see the light of the day in the senate, is like robbing peter to pay paul. it's disengine with us white

house to our nation -- disingenuous to our nation's doctors and an indefensible action which will harm our seniors so i urge the majority to stop playing politics with the health and well-being of our seniors and to work together to achieve a meaningful and realistic fix. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i have no additional speakers at this time , mr. speaker. so i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers. this is good, bipartisan legislation. i'd like to thank mr. pallone, mr. green, mr. waxman, along with our side of the aisle, for developing and helping move this bipartisan legislation. i urge my colleagues to support and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i have no additional speakers. i would yield back and urge support for this legislation. it's truly bipartisan basis. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? mr. pallone: yes, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2405 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass bill h.r. 3237 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3237, a bill to amend the soar act by clarifying the scope of coverage of the act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentlelady from the district of colombia, ms. norton, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i ask unanimous consent all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this year this body debated and ultimately approved legislation authorizing scholarships to give needy

district of columbia students the opportunity to leave their public school and enroll in a private school of their choice. following the house's approval of the soar act, the legislation was enacted into law as part of the department deaf fence and four-year continuing appropriations act which was signed by the president on april 15, mr. speaker. we're here today because there are several small and technical modifications that need to be made in order for the scholarship program to achieve its goal. this legislation would clarify three provisions. first, the education requirements for teachers of scholarship students, secondly, mr. speaker, how the nationally norm referenced test would be administered in order to properly collect data to study thiveness of the program, and thirdly, mr. speaker, which students participate in the study. on november 3, the house oversight and government reform committee approved h.r. 3237, the soar technical corrections act, by a voice vote. mr. speaker, i would also like to thank my colleague, ms.

norton, and my colleague, ranking member cummings, for working with us to ensure we had the appropriate language to modify the legislation that is before us today and with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columnia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i appreciate speaker boehner, government affairs committee chair lieberman and oversight and government reform chair issa as well as my good colleague on the other side of the aisle, the subcommittee chairman, mr. gowdy. i appreciate that all of them have worked with us and have consulted with us on these technical changes, and i do not oppose this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i reserve. i am not aware of any more

speakers, so i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady. ms. norton: i have no further speakers, mr. speaker. i yield back the remainder time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i would again thank our colleague, ms. holmes norton and mr. cummings and ask our colleagues support the passage of h.r. 3237 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3237, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r.

2297, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2297, a bill to promote the development of the southwest waterfront in the district of columbia, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. although the united states constitution gives congress exclusive legislative authority over the federal district, in 1973 we granted the district of columbia some significant autonomy by improving the home rule act. congress must still act, however, before the city can pursue certain activities. this brings us to the legislation before us today, mr. speaker. h.r. 2297 is needed to update zoning laws to have the ability to lease or sell the waterfront to a private developer. there is a redevelopment plan pending to redevelop this area which is only a short distance, mr. speaker, from the united states capitol building. we hoped this redevelopment plan will accomplish its goal of spurring economic

development and bringing jobs to the city of washington, d.c. this legislation was approved by the oversight and government reform committee by a voice vote. mr. speaker, i, again, would like to thank my colleague, ms. holmes norton from the district of columbia and ranking member cummings for working with us on this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chairman of the full committee, my good friend on the other side who is managing the bill for the committee and the chair of the subcommittee, mr. gowdy, for working closely with us on this bill so that we could get it to the floor today. i also thank the ranking member of the full committee and mr. davis, the subcommittee chair, for their very important consultation. h.r. 2297 will allow the development of the waterfront

area of southwest washington, d.c., and makes technical changes concerning land owned by the district of columbia. the district has owned the southwest waterfront since the early 1960's. the legislation transferred land to the district contained constraints typical of the prehome rule period. h.r. 2297 -- excuse me -- updates that outdated legislation to allow for the highest and best use of the land. the limitations serve no federal purpose, but the unintended effect was to make a wasteland of land that could be productive and revenue and jobs producing. federal agencies have been consulted on h.r. 2297 and raised no objections. the bill will allow mixed use development on the waterfront for the first time and will create jobs and raise local and federal revenue at a time when they are needed most.

the federal government has no interest in the southwest waterfront other than the main lobster man memorial and the titanic memorial which we have preserved. the bill also expands the types of goods that can be solid at the fish market on the -- sold at the fish market on the waterfront, a market well-known in the region. the bill includes language that redevelop with senators susan collins of maine to ensure the protection of the main lobster man memorial which is located at the southwest waterfront memorial near main avenue. mr. speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill that passed committee by voice vote and removes out-of-date restrictions. it involves no cost to the federal government. i urge passage of the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers at this time and would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield back at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman. mr. gowdy: mr. speaker, i would once again thank our colleague, ms. holmes norton, ranking member cummings, mr. davis, as my colleague so aptly pointed out, also deserves credit, the ranking member of the subcommittee. with that i would urge all of our fellow members to support passage of h.r. 2297 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2297, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 2:45 today.

>> house is in recession. live coverage here on c-span. the p.l.o. representative to the u.s. was at the national press club today. >> united states are exerting to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. all what i want to say, that the palestinian leadership and the palestinian people are right now taking a three-pronged approach to the situation between us and the israelis. one is the continuation of the nonviolent, peaceful resistance to the israeli occupation, to their actions on the ground, such as a continuation of the building of the wall, the security barrier, whatever you want to call it. which is manifested in the weekly nonviolent, peaceful demonstrations that

palestinians are carrying out every week. joined by israelis and international sympathizers. demonstrations, protests that unfortunately have been met with violence by the israeli army. something that we cannot understand why the israeli army would resort to violence to try to quell such peaceful protests but it is a clear indication of the commitment of the palestinian leadership and the p.l.o. to peaceful, nonviolent resistance. i know that many were concerned before we weren't to the united nations that going to the u.n. is going to trigger a wave of violence inside the palestinian areas and it will encourage the palestinians to abandon the negotiated setment -- settlement and thus lead the

palestinian people to resort to violence and all these expectations, luckily, thankfully, did not materialize and the palestinian leadership remain commitment -- committed to the continuation of peaceful and nonviolent protests against the israeli occupation. now, what forms this could take in the future we don't know but the emphasis will be on keeping it peaceful and nonviolent. so on the ground these are activities that are carried out by the palestinians who are under the israeli occupation, to express their opposition to the continuation of the israeli military occupation. at the diplomatic level, we of course went to the united states in september and we submitted our request for a full membership of the united nations on the 23rd of september there. has been a process, that process unfortunately was told,

after the request was deferred to a legal committee, to review the request of the p.l.o. and it's not a secret that u.s. pressure led to this delay in reviewing the request. i describe it as a hung jury that couldn't agree whether they should proceed with the request or take it further for voting at the u.n. security council. the u.s. from the beginning indicated that they don't want this issue to go to a vote and they did all that they can to pressure certain countries who were members, nonpermanent members of the u.n. security council not to vote in favor of taking the issue for a vote.

the leadership of the leadership reiterated that position recently. i don't -- i don't know when we will try again but in january there will be a change in the composition of -- actually it has been announced but it will assume -- new members will assume their responsibilities in january for the two year nonpermanent position at the u.s. security council. we will be assisting the situation as we go in between as you all know we went to the unesco and we sought full membership of the unesco and we got that full membership. something that created an unjustified reaction from both the united states and israel. i personally do not understand what is the harm of the palestinians joining the united nations, educational, scientific and cultural

organization, what kind of harm are we causing the israelis or americans by doing that? and why would we be punished by congress for joining an organization that is doing great things in different parts of the world and the u.s. is involved in that organization? so i think politics is playing a major role here, not principles and values. so we will continue our efforts in the end. we will choose the right timing to proceed and to pursue other venues, international organizations. the third area is the political and following our official request at the u.n., the quartet met and issued a statement and they said that they expect both israelis and the palestinians to submit their vision of solution to the security and borders issues

that we have been trying to convince the israelis to be forthcoming and to engage us on these issues for the last two years. and three months -- a three-month period was given to both sides to do that which will expire sometime this month because this happened in september. the palestinian side, for those of you who don't know, have submitted our vision of how we see the security arrangements and the borders of future palestinian state. we submitted that to the international quartet. until today the israeli government has failed to reciprocate and submit a similar proposal or vision on how they see the security arrangements and the borders. this is basically the problem that we've been having with the

israeli government. ever since president netia hew took office, he -- net in a hew took office, but when the time came for him to produce concrete proposals so that we can engage and discuss they always came empty handed and refused to submit any proposals for meaningful discussions between the two sides. this is something that the united states of america, the administration here is fully aware of it. they know that the palestinian side is not delaying or, you know, was very forthcoming and offered so many ideas and proposals to get the israelis to entice the israelis to the come to the negotiating table over the last 1/2 years. unfortunately we are confronting -- 2 1/2 years. unfortunately we are

confronting a sip situation now. and instead of the u.s. and international commount tell the israel ice you have to support these proposals as agreed by the international quartet, now once again we are seeing efforts on the part of the united states and the international quartet to change once again the terms of the rules of the game. they want now this to happen during direct negotiations and we did not agree when we engaged the international quartet after their statement in september, we did not agree to go back to direct negotiations. the idea was to engage the two sides separately which the quartet did on two or three occasions and now once again after they have failed to make israel reciprocate and offer its own ideas and proposals, as we have witnessed in the past,

let's change the rules of the game, the palestinians are the party of pressure and we want now to ask them to come to the table and during these direct negotiations the israelis will put these ideas on the table. and if we haven't been talking to the ilrealies for the past 20 years and we -- israelis for the past 20 years and we don't know why they have not come up with some concrete idea how they perceive the solution. so our position is clear. we are not going to engage in any direct negotiations with israel unless and until israel clearly announces its acceptance of 1967 borders as the future -- as the borders that will be the baseline for the future of the palestinian state with minor reciprocal

equal in quantity and quality land swaps and until israel accepts to fully freeze settlement activities, includingese jerusalem. israel continues with its policies -- they continue to demolish homes in injury use lem. they control areas of the sea which is 60% of the total area of the west bank, an area that the palestinians have no access to, and they continue with all these facts on the ground while at the same time they are delaying the political solution because their aim is to preserve the status quo. our aim is to tell them that this status quo is not going to be preserved, the continuation of the israeli occupation must have consequences. and if israel does not

understand that there will be consequences for its continued occupation they will have no incentive to move. why should they seek a resolution to the conflict with the pal people when unfortunately countries around the world are providing shield to them and they are treating them as a state above the law? and therefore, our objective is to change this political dynamic and to send a clear message to israel and the international community that the palestinian people cannot accept this situation to go on forever. we cannot accept this situation to continue at a time when things are changing so fast in the region, when the united states is supporting all arab nations in the region who are trying to change the conditions, to have a better future, to live in a democratic free society and when it comes to the palestinian-israeli

conflict, we see this country acting totally, completely in contradiction with the declared policies in the middle east. the united states has always supported the underdog in all the conflicts excepts when it comes to the palestinian-israeli conflict. we are the underdogs but we don't enjoy the support of the united states, and i think this is a very shortsided policy that will hurt u.s. national security interests and will undermine the role of the united states as an international leader and honest broker trying to dissolve the conflict between the palestinians and the israelis. thank you very much. [applause] >> yes, sir, in the back. >> thank you. the country of --

>> can you identify yourself? >> oh, i beg your pardon. >> c.f.c. world. the country of iceland is the country that has officially recognized palestinian state in the western europe, as i understand it. two-part question. how is iceland the only country to step forward? is the u.s. that powerful at the u.n.? the second part is about china. what is -- china has said on the record that it supports the creation of the palestinian state. i don't believe passed any kind of legislation to that regard but it is one of the supporters at the u.n. security council to do this. what do you think of china's support and do you think it will continue? >> first of all on iceland, i

think what iceland did is they took a step forward an advanced step in europe. we have many, many countries who are willing to recognize a palestinian state. at the unesco -- france voted in favor of the palestinian -- at unesco. i mean, everybody is assessing and evaluating their interests, and the role, the impact, the influence of the u.s. in europe is not a secret that the united states has a significant impact in europe. but if you ask me about greece, if you ask me about malta, if you ask me about austria, if you ask me about belgium, if you ask me about norway, if you ask me about spain, i mean, when the time comes these countries will grant full recognition. they are trying to somehow

prevent the situation from reaching a dead end by -- and i don't agree with them by thinking if they recognize the palestinian state they could complicated the situation because this has to be done through negotiations. they know there is no negotiations. they know the israelis don't want to resume negotiations. but we were -- i believe that many european countries will eventually recognize a palestinian state. on the issue of china, china has traditionally been a supporter of the palestinian people. we have had historic relationships with china and the chinese government, the chinese people are strong supporters of the palestinian people. and we are not concerned about the position of china when it comes to that. >> china's 21st century.

the question is that -- this is a longer-term question -- in september when hamas gave the speech at the u.n., he received a lot of welcome from the crowd. which gives some signals maybe that the time is change diagnose changing. because you feel that this round of the financial crisis happened in the u.s. and spread all over, do you see that as a real game changer for the future of palestine? >> we have a small economy compared to the economies of the united states, europe, even israel, in comparison to israel. we haven't been very much affected because of our economy is more -- small. i don't think in terms of support we are getting from europe, from japan, from the united states, from other

countries that we will be very much affected by what is going on, again, because of the size of this support of our thinking about it today reading the newspaper. the support we get from the donor companies is very small. i don't think other than countries trying to use that support as a leverage. unfortunately, congress in this country is trying to use that as a financial leverage. when they cut off economic and diplomatic aid to the palestinian people, they are shooting the peasants in the foot because most of the support they give us, 80% of it comes back to this country. other than using it as a leverage, i don't think we will be very much impacted by what is going on. [inaudible] >> sorry. you might have already touched on this. what's your next move in

claiming statehood in the u.n. general assembly and also, after unesco, are you thinking of other u.s. subordinates? >> well, i mentioned that earlier. we are still committed to pursue full membership at the united nations. when we say full membership, for the time being we are not contemplating going to the u.n. general assembly. we will go through the right channels that have been blocked, unfortunately. last month as a result of pressure. but we are determined to seek full membership. in regards to joining other international organizations, i mean, we've done that at unesco and i think this is something that we will contemplate in the future. we will assess the situation, the political situation, and we will probably pursue that in the future, given that there

will be no significant progress to reach peaceful resolutions to the conflict. >> are you considering i.c.c.? >> well, i.c.c., we have to become -- we have to become -- we have to get a fit. whether it's a nonmember state through the general assembly or a full member state through the u.n. security council which we are trying to do right now. so the i.c.c., we cannot join it unless we elevate or upgrade our status right now from that of a permanent observer or entity to that of a state. >> to follow-up a couple other questions, have you tried to pursue any other state invoking the i.c.c. against israel? you say you have so many friends around the world yet no one has invoked i.c.c. on israel. >> we did resort to other

countries to pursue the -- for example, this is someone we did through pakistan which is a member of the organization of islamic countries. and that's how we managed because we were not presented at the human rights council. again, this is something that needs a political decision by the palestinian leadership and we have all these options available to us on the table once again. we are assessing, evaluating the situation and we are not ruling anything out. >> it sounds to me that's something the process was criticized by many as a public relations staunch. it's dragging out just like the

negotiations dragged out through the years and years. what are you ultimately producing? you seem to be precluding a general assembly move and you're stuck at the security council. so what have you actually tangiblely gained? >> if you remember what i said earlier, we have taken three-pronged approach to the situation. unfortunately, i cannot divulge here on what other options the leadership is contemplating. but we talked about political, diplomatic and peaceful resistance. you know, right now maybe the diplomatic is prevailing approach but things are continuing on the ground in terms of peaceful nonviolent resistance to the israeli occupation. we have u.s. officials visiting all the time.

we are in contact with them. so you cannot say that the focus is only on the united nations and we are getting stuck there the same way the negotiations have gotten stuck the last two years, 2 1/2 years. this is exactly what we are trying to do. we are trying to change the political dynamics by following these three approaches in order to create conditions which will be condusive to resolving the conflict once and for all. >> why are you precluding to going to the general assembly? just getting a 2/3 majority? >> we don't need -- this is a misperception also about the uniting for peace. we don't need to invoke uniting for peace, by the way. the palestinians have the right under certain special rules adopted by the united nations to seek acceptance to the

general assembly anytime we want. this is something that has to be determined by the leadership . we are assessing the situation, evaluating it. i said we are not ruling anything out, but i cannot tell you when this will happen. >> man in the back. >> my question was asked. >> at the end. >> i think many agree this is the time that palestine could make a significant progress in terms of peace, in terms of securing the border, but in the meantime i hear in the united states scholars are questioning the leadership of the palestinians. would you respond to that leadership question? >> are you talking in terms of the vision that we have among the palestinian society or what do you mean leadership question? >> some people are concerned even though there is opportunity for the palestinians to move forward

and make progress, people are not sure whether they have enough leadership to really push forward. >> you many if they have -- again, this will -- can be also dealt with in terms of existing visions between the gaza strip and the west bank, between hamas and -- something that the palestinian leadership is also focusing on to end the division the two sides. the meeting that took place between the president and one of hamas two weeks ago, they both agreed to have a fullout meeting in cairo to try to resolve all the outstanding issues and to end the division, agree on elections in may of next year. this is something important for us because since 2006 we haven't had any elections. we need to preserve the

democratic process. we only had elections twice since the palestinian authority was established, one in 1996 and one in 2006. without having a vibrant democratic process, the people cannot be involved in determining who would represent them and who will lead them. so we are determined to end division and hopefully be able to have elections in may of next year. >> could you tell me what's wrong? >> could somebody close the doors? it's so noisy. >> yes. yes, ma'am, go ahead. >> hi. sandra wayne with news week daily beat. i've interviewed ileana ros-lehtinen and have profiled a number of people in congress who have violently opposed. >> violently? >> yes. but when you put your flag up, it created a tremendous stir.

how do you deal with these people who say right away no, no, no, no? how do you deal with members of congress, and do you go and lobby? i pose that. >> of course we do and talk. luckily not all people who treat us the same way like ileana and cole and i think we do have friends on the hill. >> i am talking about the ones that really -- >> i'm coming to that. and we talk to influential members of congress who look at things differently than the people who you mentioned. i think it's a big mistake on their part for them to not talk to the palestinians. i mean, the age of not talking to the palestinians has long been gone. we talk to the israelies.

we talk to different segments of the israeli population, far right, far left. we are here legitimately in this country. we are officially recognized by the united states, and we represent the people who are struggling for freedom and independence. without the palestinians there would be no peace and stability in the region. and if these people think about ignoring the palestinians, by only listening to one side and not the other side they can make the right judgment about the situation they are wrong. so they are only weakening themselves and they are undermining the role that they claim to be playing in bringing the israelis and the palestinians together when they refuse or choose not to talk to me. when we raise the flag, this flag that represents 10 billion palestinian people, i mean, this is our national flag, for them to come out and condemn that i think is an indication of political immaturity.

>> i'll ask one and then i'll come back to you. i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the so-called arab spring and how that has affected everything both for better or for worse. i presume at one point raised expectations and hopes but then so much is inconclusive and the world is focused on what's going on in syria and prior to that libya and egypt and so on. has this been a good thing for the palestinian cause or has it created expectations that cannot be met and so forth? can you talk about that? >> our situation is different compared to the arab countries. first of all, we are still technically effectively under israeli military occupation.

we cannot brag we have a government, we have a regime so that our leaders will fight until death to stay in power. i mean, we don't have that power to fight over it. and therefore our struggle is with the israeli occupation. we don't have an internal -- i mean, internally the palestinian people are focused on ending the israeli military occupation because this is our main objective. having said that, we said really that we were always on the side of the people. and whatever arab people choose in terms of their future regimes, future governments, we are in support of the arab masses because we, the palestinians, started popular uprising against israel in 1987, in 2000 and the arab people looked up at us in order to be inspired about these

uprising. and therefore we cannot be but on the side of the arab people. now, this is going to be a long process. egypt, tunisia who are peaceful but then we have seen things turn utterly violent in libya and in yemen and to some extent in syria. one thing is important for the united states and the west to understand, changes have to come from within. they should not try to influence change in the arab countries. it has to come from within. if we want to have real representation of the people in deciding the future of these countries. by trying to impact and influence the outcomes of these movements, we are -- not we, but the west is risking, the west is risking once again,

undermining these important social, cultural and political developments in the arab countries. yes, they have to watch it carefully but they have to allow this process to take its due time. it could be a year. it could be two years. in some countries it will be fast. in others it will be long, but they should not try to interveer directly to impact the process -- interfere directly the impact the process is going on there. >> do you have one? >> what would israel have to do to -- what changes would it have to make for the palestinians to recognize israel as a state? >> to recognize israel as a state? >> yes. to recognize israel. >> we did --

>> go ahead. >> yeah. >> identify yourself. >> bob webb. i'm working for the n.p.c. newswire. >> ok. just wanted to get that on the record. >> i just wanted -- i think i know some of the things you would say, but what -- what would it take to -- for the palestinians to say, you know, we recognize israel as a -- >> well, we did. >> legitimate state? >> we did that in 1993. i know what you are talking about. you mean israel as a jewish state, that's what you are talking about. these are two different things. we in 1993 when we exchanged letters, the p.l.o. and israel, we checked the state of israel and israel recognized the p.l.

ofment. and we con-- p.l.o. and we revoked all the clauses in the national charter that called for the state of israel. and again in 1998 upon the request of prime minister netanyahu who was the prime minister at the time and in the presence of president clinton the palestine national council was convened in gaza and we once again reiterated our revocation of all the clauses that called for the state of israel. what israel today is asking us is to recognize it as a jewish state and we said we cannot do that because, one, it will give a religious characteristic to the conflict. and this is something we try to avoid because we do have forces within the palestinian society, within the arab countries who believe that palestinian is islamic -- and nobody has to negotiate and give up an inch of palestinian because it's for

muslims, it's for arabs. we shouldn't give it up. and this would create a lot of complexities we do not need. secondly, there are two important issues that must be resolved before it's real can call itself whatever they -- israel can call itself whatever they want. call yourself the empire of the jewish people. it's none of our business. you call yourselves whatever you want. don't ask me to recognize you. you have the issue of refugees and the issue of 1.3 million palestinians who are citizens and minorities living inside israel and they have already -- if i go as the palestinian leadership and say, ok, we recognize you as a jewish state, i am undermining the already undermined rights of the 1.3 million minorities there. and, two, i am giving up my right to discuss the issue of the refugees on the table. something israel accepted in

all of our previous agreements to discuss with us to resolve the final status agreement. and therefore this is the political issue. i know the israelis are using it because it finds resonance among jews around the world. we are not against the existence of the state of israel, but we at this stage reject recognizing israel as a jewish state. >> can i follow on that? as long as i've studied the middle east or at least for so many years, the demographic issue which you alluded to, experts say, well, you know israel just one day will have to do certain things because of the demographic time bombs, as some would say, on that side. is that true? i mean, is there pressure on that or is there something they're talking about? >> democracy and time have been used in the past to actually compel both parties to move

faster on the political process. demographically, if things go like they are expected it to go, 2030, the number of non-jews between jordan and the mediterranean will surpass that of jews. therefore, israel's claims and allegations that they want to have a homeland for the jews on the historic land of palestinian could be undermined. and therefore this is something that even you as officials, president obama, secretary clinton used this year when they said that there is dem graphy and this is -- demography and this is important. this is exactly what israel is trying to do. israel is taking measures on the ground to try to reduce the number of the palestinians, especially in jerusalem. in the past, israel would say

that we are expanding building settlements in what will remain under our control in the future agreement. they call it jewish neighborhoods. of course there is no such thing. they are settlements and i call them israeli settlements. i like to use the term israeli instead of jewish settlements and they are now going after palestinian nashede -- neighborhoods. so they finished with the plan of beefing up and expanding the israeli settlements. now they are after the pockets of palestinian neighborhoods, arab neighborhoods to build settlements there and to create conditions to push the palestinians out of east jerusalem. they are trying to counter it

by taking measures that will make it difficult for the palestinians to stay on their land and would push them either to the west bank or push them out of the country. that's why the wall was built to swallow up more than 8%, 9% of the west bank as a result. i told you time has been used in the past to, you know, to say it's better now. i think the timing now is very appropriate for the two sides to try to seek an end to this conflict rather than wait out until the dust settles down, like the veil es want to do -- israelis want to do. who will rule egypt? who will rule yemen? who will rule jordan? this is a very, very risky approach. we should put an end to this conflict when we can do that and when things are under our control. >> rodrigo valderrama.

plantation international. just a comment and a question. so what you are really saying is you have a separation between church and state, this is how you would like to handle these negotiations, right? >> separation between church and state? >> the jewish state, etc., you just consider it a state and not a religious state which is fine, just asking you. you want to separate those states? not a jewish state but just a state, is that what i'm hearing? >> yeah. i think in our declaration of independence we did say that islam is the official religion of the palestinian state. but, again, again, again, what we are -- what we are seeking is an open society, a tolerant society where they can all coexist together. i don't -- if you think of us -- i mean, we are very secular, secular-oriented people. i think -- i think we know that

there has to be, you know, why we rely on islam, the religion, to be the religion of the state. at the same time we have to show tolerance to other minorities and to other combrupes who would live in -- groups who would live in palestinian. >> you say it might be an on tune time to take negotiations on you were looking for some recognition as a state to be able to go ahead. doesn't it really depend on you on how you consider yourself a state for you to negotiate oud and not the other way -- out and not the other way around? >> for the last 20 years there has being a disparity in the negotiation. there was clear the balance of power was in favor of seal who controlled the land, -- israel who controlled the land. there was people among the palestinian society who said these negotiations are useless

because as long as you are not equal, you are not going to be able to produce the desired result. so we relied on the united states and the international community to compensate us for that imparity and inequality. but we are the two sides. unfortunately for 20 years that intervention by the international community could not create enough leverage on israel to entice israel to get them to an agreement or end the conflict with the palestinian people. so we are going to the united nations to get that elevated status so we can sit with the israelis and we can negotiate with them as a state and an occupation as a state which is occupying us and by doing so, actually, we are preserving the two-state solution because we

are the ones who want to ensure that the two-state solution -- we are not doing that to undermine the two-state solution. >> first of all, thank you for being open and candid. >> have i been candid? i'm trying. >> now, the question is, as i understand, when palestine decided to take the u.n. approach, the purpose was to try something other than the by lateral negotiations. but -- bilateral negotiations. but the result of this is approach you is agree with the -- according to what you just told us, they come back to the bilateral negotiations again. i mean, of course you're keeping the door open on the -- >> i mean -- >> u.n. possibilities. but what we see now is the

timeline for that opening up the bilateral negotiations, so my question to you is, do you regret you didn't work with the quartet? >> no, i don't see contradiction between going to the united nations and the bilateral track of negotiations. we said that from the beginning. we are not going to abandon negotiations. and we said that even if we become the full member state of the united nations that the day after we have to sit with the israelis to solve all the outstanding issues. there are so many issues that will only be resolved on the negotiating table. settlements, borders, refugees, the future of jerusalem. the issues cannot be resolved but on the negotiating table. but in order to create that situation where we feel that we are sitting on equal footing with the israelis because after

20 years of disparity, the israelis didn't see any incentive why should they as long as they have the upper hand. continuing to talk to the quartet, continuing to talk to the united states and the other countries is in the best interest of the palestinian people and will not be instead of, you know, going to the united nations instead of resuming negotiations if the conditions are appropriate. >> anyone who has not asked a question who would like to? ok. any follow-up or more from folks who -- sam, go ahead. >> parliamentary point, why did you wait 20 years? people say this was a p.r. ploy. >> it wasn't. >> why did you wait 20 years? >> they say it was blocked by

the palestinian leadership and the leadership will back down in the last minute but the fact that we went ahead proved we were not bluffing and people said that we have been affected by what is going in the arab spring in the arab countries. the idea of going to the united nations started back in november of last year, december of last year, before things started to change in tunisia and egypt. so i think -- i think we gave the bilateral process a very good chance. we were very much hoping that the united states and the international community once again will rectify this imbalance in the negotiations with the israelis and when we found out that things are not producing the desired results, we after we made or changed our approach, the die madamics and

paradigms on the ground. is in the end of the process? no. this is a process that will take some time and we are determined to use whatever diplomatic political means available to us to try to reach an end to the israeli military occupation and to the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent israeli state. >> talk about the u.s. role both in terms of pressure that has been applied and also mr. deyton's role in terms of the security apparatus. >> deyton is no longer involved but you mean his past role? >> yes. >> we talked to the u.s. administration, we talked to officials in a very frank and candid manner. we agreed with them. they told us what they think

should be done. we told them what we feel we should do. we were aware of their position since may of last year. they told us that they are opposed to our bid at the united nations. so nobody was not surprised. we were not surprised about their decision to oppose it. we tried to explain to them our political situation as well. we told them that we also have the constituency to be responsible for and to be accountable to us. it's not only an israel that the public is always an important factor and israel cannot do that because the israeli public could not approve it and because in the united states the conditions. we have people that say, where are you getting us to? i don't describe it as pressure. maybe they have been assertive

about their points. we were assertive. we were affirmative. i don't think this is pressure. we do have open channels of communication with them. we will continue to have open channels of communication with them. on the issue of dayton, this is to help build their compass its and institutions. i think he did an excellent job in providing technical support to palestinian security forces to produce a new generation of palestinian security -- who were instrumental in providing security and spreading the rule of law in other areas. we are doing no one any service by protecting our own civilian prop lakes. this is the palestinian national interest. we are not doing it for israel. we are not doing it for the united states.

we are doing it for our own people. >> ok. we have about four minutes left. one question i would ask is, as i understand it, the use of palestine were very interested in hamas and fatah not being broken apart and coming together. is there -- can you talk a little bit more of where things are in that regard? >> the youth? >> the idea that the two split factions are resolving more and more of their differences and give the youth the hope that we won't have a fractured government and we will have some sort of reconciliation government. >> we look at it differently than the outside world looks at it. we look at it as our side. a vision that has significantly helped the palestinianian people morally, politically. -- palestinian people morally,

politically. it helped palestinian people not only -- for hamas and not among the palestinian people but among friendly traditional allies who have already supported the palestinian cause. for us it's becoming an issue that must be dealt with once and for all. and the people cannot accept arguments from either side that will lead for the continuation of the division. so i believe that there are efforts being done right now for a long perth, you know, external influence, external pressure, somehow undermines progress in the efforts to end the divisions. i believe right now that the two sides are determined to

reach the conclusion to this sad episode in the palestinian history and it is not directed at anyone. i don't think israelis should look at it -- or the united states should not be concerned about it. it will do anything i think it will help the palestinian people be united, have one voice, one position and i think it will enhance the chances of reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflict with israel. >> anybody else? ok. thank you very, very much for coming out today, and thank you, sir. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] cappingscappings koppe koppe --

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the house is expected to come in shortly. 10 bills on the calendar including one requiring congressional approval for major executive branch issued regulations. we will have live coverage when members come back in. this morning on "washington journal" we heard from viewers whether there should be a compromise on the payroll tax cut.

host: as we said, senate democrats unveiled what they're calling is a compromise. house speaker john boehner has his own plan. and so we want to get your thoughts on this day, should there be a compromise on it, should the congress move forward on extending it? here is the "baltimore sun." >> to the house now. debate on noncontroversial

bills under suspension of the rules happening now. may obtain a consumers informed written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the internet as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 211, h.r. 2471, a bill to amend section 2710 of title 18 united states code to clarify that a videotaped service provider may obtain a consumers informed written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the internet. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. . mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 2471 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, today i am pleased that we are considering a bipartisan bill to update the video privacy protection act of 1998. this bill will ensure that a law related to the handling of videotaped rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century. the vppa was passed by congress in the wake of judge robert bork's supreme court nomination battle during which a local washington, d.c., newspaper obtained a list of videotapes that they rented from their neighborhood video rental store. it caused bipartisan outrage which resulted in the enactment of the vppa. the commercial video distribution landscape has changed dramatically since 1988. back then the primary consumer consumption of video consumption occurred through the sale or rental of prerecorded video cassette tapes.

this required users to travel to the local video store to pick up a rental. they had to go back to the store to return the rental. it was recommended to friends primarily through you face-to-face conversations. with today's technology, consumers can quickly and efficiently access video programming through a variety of platforms, including through internet protocol-based video services, all without leaving their homes. this bill updates the vppa to allow videotaped service providers to facilitate the sharing on social media networks of the movies watched or recommended by users. it is narrowly crafted to have the protections for consumers privacy while modernizing the law to empower consumers to comore with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite tv shows or movies on social media in a simple way.

however, it protects the consumers' control of the information by requiring consumer consent before any of this occurs, and it makes clear that a consumer can opt in to the ongoing sharing of his or her favorite movies or tv shows without having to provide consent each and every time a movie is rented. it also makes clear that rental affirmative consent can be provided through the internet and can be withdrawn at any time. finally, thanks to an amendment by the gentleman from new york, the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee, mr. nadler, the amended bill we are considering today requires that the consent be distinct and separate from any other form setting forth other legal and financial obligations. this bill is truly pro-consumer and places the decision of whether or not to share video rentals with one's friends squarely in the hands of the consumer. in fact, the co-chairs of the future of privacy forum correctly pointed out in an

opinion piece in "roll call" on november 29 that the antiquated law on the books is a hindrance to consumers. this legislation does not change the scope of who is covered by the vppa or the definition of personally identifiable information. in addition, it preserves the requirement that the user provide affirmative written consent. it is time that congress updates the vppa to keep up with today's technology and the consumer marketplace. this bill does just that. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of bipartisan legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for his excellence presentation.

i agree with him that what probably triggered this bill in 1988 was supreme court nominee robert burke's video rental history in which his privacy was violated in a very major way. and so i join him and the members of the house judiciary committee in supporting the video piracy protection act which provudes continued consumer -- provides continued consumer protection. h.r. 2471 is very important in this respect. because over the course of the 23 years that this measure has become law, there have been

significant changes in the ways and means by which people view technological content. movies can now be downloaded to mobile phones. live events can be streamed in real time to laptops using mobile internet services. and so there were so many other things happening in the transformations that goes on at all times that would have -- that could not have been contemplated in 1988. so there was ambiguity about whether the statute applies only to physical goods such as video cassettes and d.v.d.'s. under this bill a videotape service provider means anybody

engaged in business and/or affecting interstate or foreign commerce of rental, sale or delivery or prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio/visual materials. it's the phrase similar audio/visual materials that have created some ambiguity. and so what we've done is specifying the requirement of informed written consent for disclosure. may include consent through electronic means using the internet. and so as the bill moved through committee markup, i -- i wanted to make sure the bill provides for the greatest protection for consumer privacy. accordingly, like the

subcommittee chair, i supported the nadler amendment but required such consent requests be clearly and permanently presented to the consumer. fortunately, those amendments were accepted. and though i feel that the bill could have gone further, i believe, for example, that the consumer should be asked periodically if their consent should be renewed. it is a god bill, and accordingly -- it is a good bill and accordingly, i support its passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan for his support for the legislation. and reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from north carolina, my friend, mel watt of the judiciary committee. i think he's the ranking subcommittee member of this part of the judiciary committee. i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. watt: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding time. and i regret that i have to be the skunk at the party today. in opposition to this bill, while i support innovation on the web, i do not support it at the expense of consumer privacy . i believe we've rushed this bill to the floor without sufficient development and consequently without giving any thought to its implications for consumer privacy.

the bill would amend what is widely considered to be one of the strongest protections of consumer privacy records in the united states, the video privacy protection act. without receiving testimony from a single privacy expert. it also ignores the impact this bill may have on state laws providing similar or greater protections, at a time when we know that technology has become almost commonplace, this pervasive and invasive, our responsibility as policymakers is not to surrender to technology and to sacrifice the values that we have held dear since the founding of this nation. technology and privacy are not incompatible. we can and should promote technological innovation while simultaneously providing the uninformed dissemination of

personal information. this bill falls short of that objective. the supporters of this bill point to the widespread sharing already taking place over the internet, but they neglect to publicize the privacy lawsuits, some of which are still pending against those video and music sites that permit their users to share their play list. the video privacy protection act was not only a reaction to the publication of judge robert bork's rental records during his nomination preceding to the united states supreme court, the committee report also noted where an attorney obtained video records in a custody dispute to demonstrate that the father was unfit to have custody of his children based largely on his video rental records. many of the lawsuits today

reflect consumer concerns with precisely this type of abuse and misuse of rental records and other equally private information. stated purpose of the bill is to respond to the new commercial video distribution landscape by empowering consumers to do more with their video consumption preferences, including sharing names of new or favorite tv shows or movies on social media in a simple way. but when you really peel away the layers, you have to ask yourself one question, who does this bill benefit? it really doesn't benefit the consumer, the consumer already has the capacity to share his or her video preferences online however she pleases. the bill instead benefits companies by relieving them of the burden of protecting

consumer records by getting a one-time, one-time universal consent to disclose users' viewing history in order to share them on social media sites. but because social media sites are often dynamic with users, rosters or friends ever-changing consumer's consent today to allow access to their viewing history is clearly not informed by who will be their friend tomorrow. today when online bullying of teens and young adults is increasing and leading to depression or suicide, you should have greater care to ensure that their interests are not cavalierly disregarded. allowing video service providers to release

information as private as a person's viewing history, which clearly shows to the world their loves, likes and disease likes, should not be done without careful contemplation and consideration. in closing i would emphasize that i believe technological advance and innovation -- are both extremely important. it is the future of america's economy, i don't question that. it is reckless on our part and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and i thank the gentleman for yielding time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: to respond to my good friend from north carolina and he and i have attempted to work together to resolve his

differences. in fact, i believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, does resolve some of the concerns the gentleman had, but obviously as he has just expressed, not all of them. the internet community and consumer advocacy groups support the bipartisan. hulu, google, facebook, i.a.c., apple, the center for democracy and technology, and the future of privacy forum are among those who see h.r. 2471 for the simple modernizing amendment that it is. the vvpa contains strict privacy, opt-in consent. the proposed amendment to the vvpa keeps the opt-in standard fully in tact. h.r. 2471 enhances the protection provided by the vppa

by ensuring that the opt-in consent required must be separate and distinct from any other end user agreement. this measure further empowers consumers to make decisions about their information in a manner that is fully informed. none of the examples provided by mr. watt illustrate a disagreement between the commenters he highlighted with the consumer empowerment measures that h.r. 2471 provides. h.r. 2471 simply gives consumers the freedom to share what they've watched with their friends if they would like to. it grants consumers the same right to share movies and television shows that they've enjoyed as is already possible for muic -- music, news and books. and he correctly notes that someone can right now go on facebook or some other social media and say, i watched this movie or that television show and i like it or don't like it. the difference however is that consumers do not understand why

they can have an arrangement for the music they listen to to immediately go up online so that their friends can listen to the same music simultaneously but with regard to movies they have to take additional steps that can under circumstances be inconvenient to them. that's why they like this convenience and that's why consumers should have it and that's why this bill empowers consumers in ways that they are not empowered today and why it is a real consumer bill. h.r. 2471 ensures that the vppa's high standard of privacy protection remains untouched. consumers must affirmatively opt in to share with friends the movies and television shows they've watched. a consumer can withdraw his or her consent at any time and h.r. 2471 is narrowly tailored to update the vppa, a 1980's law, to make it capacity with consumers' desires, with

consumers' communications, with consumers' socializing on the internet in the 21st century. and the committee has indicated in its report language that there is no intention for this collar fification to negate in any -- clarification to negate in any way existing laws, regulations and practices designed to protect the privacy of children on the internet. as always, however, the first line of

the problem is that his definition of protecting

privacy is not as extensive as my definition of protecting privacy and i think my definition is more consistent with consumers because consumers keep filing these lawsuits to try to protect themselves from the disclosure of their personal information. the electronic privacy information center which has been at the forefront of ensuring privacy protections -- protections for consumers in the information age, just last week, secured a victory for facebook users when its complaint to the federal trade commission resulted in a settlement requiring facebook to establish an extensive privacy program. analytics company and web video

and other privacy lawsuit over their alleged use of supercookies to track people. there are -- there's case after case after case of consumers' information being used, abused, misused and here we are making it easier for that to occur by saying they already have the authority -- information when they release a movie, but this will give one-time universal conference to release everything that -- coverage to release everything that i view on video. and that's inconsistent with what i think is necessary to protect the privacy of people in this electronic age. now, i understand that there are people who have an interest

in this, i mean, there are people who profit from mining this kind of information. but our interests should be in protecting the rights of consumers, protecting them from having this kind of private information, i would think, since the original video protection wast act was about protecting the privacy of judge robert bork, and reviewing -- and people going into his records to review his video viewing privacy, that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would be the most vigorous in trying to protect this. but here we are giving in to the interests that will make money out of this and exposing our children and our own viewing habits to this kind of

intrusive action on our part. and we're doing it without the benefit of any testimony at a hearing to talk about this. we should simply not be doing this. i want to submit, we're in the house so, i'll submit for the record a letter dated december 5, 2012. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. watt: a letter dated december 5, 2012, from the electronic privacy information center in which they aggressively opposed this legislation. they say they are a nonpartisan public research organization. the video protection -- privacy

protection act was passed in 1988 following disclosure of private video rental records of supreme court nominee by a video rental store to a news organization. their broad based support for -- there was broad base support for passage of the act and was signed by president ronald reagan. and this act was considered a mild privacy act in many respects. it's technology neutral, and this bill undermines this video privacy act that was the model act that was designed to protect a republican nominee to the supreme court and was signed into law by a republican president. and here we are in this congress getting ready to send the bill over to the senate which hopefully they won't act

on. they will save us from our own ineptitude which would undermine the key provision of the video protection act which is the right of users to give meaningful consent to the disclosure of their personal information. this blanket consent, according to the electronic privacy information center, and i agree with them wholeheartedly, the blanket consent provision transfers control from the individual user to the company in possession of the data and diminish the control that net flicks customers would -- netflix customers would have in the use of disclosure. while we know others report on the routine of their customers, we know that facebook users have never been particularly happy about this. the history of beacon is well-known and also that the

routine disclosure of video viewing activity is not something that most facebook users are clamoring for. in fact, facebook just entered into a settlement of a privacy lawsuit. and here we are on the floor of the house saying that we value that, the business interest more than we value the personal privacy interest of individual citizens. this is a bad idea. it shouldn't be here on the suspension calendar as if it's a noncontroversial clarification of the law. this is a dramatic undermining of the video protection -- privacy protection act. we are doing disservice to our constituents by giving this authority. they already have the authority

to do it on a case-by-case-by-case basis. it may be inconvenient to the companies to get the authority given to them that way, but that's the way it should be given to them, not in some blanket authority that just allows the companies to go in and use this information as willy-nilly and without regard to the privacy. i thank the gentleman for yielding again and i may ask him to yield again depending on what happens but -- he says not going to yield to me any more. i just think my colleagues should vote against this bill, defeat it on suspension. let's at least debate it under regular order on the floor of the house or send it back to the committee so we can have some hearings about the privacy implications so we can get this done. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i yield back to him. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, in no way does this legislation in any way undercut the principal purpose of the video protection privacy act -- privacy protection act because the power rests with the consumer. basically what this legislation does it is empowers consumers to do things in the 21st century with regard to their movie and television viewing commouncations with their friends that they already have with music, they already have with news, they already have with books, their magazine articles that they read and we should have that kind of consistency in the law. the video protection privacy act remains strong and its principal purposes remains there intact and it's an opt in requirement, an opt in requirement that anyone who wants to avail themselves of this convenience has to give informed consent to do so and i

urge my colleagues to support this very bipartisan legislation, it has strong support on both sides of the aisle, and i am prepared to yield back. the gentleman from michigan if he has any further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan -- virginia reserve his time? mr. goodlatte: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i am going to yield to a distinguished man straight from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee, the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. ranking member. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to passage of h.r. 2471. you know, this bill will make it easy for video producers to be able to sell to others

information that consumers may feel like is private. now, i myself don't want folks to know that i have ordered up "debbie does dallas." i may not mind if they ordered up "jay edgar," but i don't want them to know that i ordered "good girls gone bad." and i certainly wouldn't want on behalf of judge robert bork, i certainly wouldn't want anyone to be able to uncover the fact that he's been ordering up relentlessly the film "bad boys of summer."

we have a right to privacy, and that right should not just be given away without adequate knowledge on behalf of the consumer what they're giving away. and so this bill has proceeded to the suspension calendar without any kind of hearing before the judiciary committee on whether or not the bill should be marked up or not. and so we have not heard from experts. we don't know what kind of waiver by internet, we don't know the mechanics of that waiver. we don't know how easy it could be to waive your rights. it could be as waiving your right to a jury trial in a cell

phone contract. for those reasons i vote or i ask that this bill be denied. and i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume just to say to the gentleman from georgia that i have good news for him. there is absolutely no way that anyone can under this legislation find out any of his video viewing habits unless he consentence with informed consent, with a separate consent to allowing that information to be made known to anybody. so again this legislation makes good sense. it's what consumers want in the 21st century. it's how they share their information online and those who don't want to share their information this way do not have to give this consent and therefore this legislation i think strikes the right balance. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2471. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. watt: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. watt: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1021, the temporary bankruptcy judgeships extension act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 1021, a bill to prevent the termination of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1021, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, one of the results of the slacked economy is that more individuals and businesses have filed for bankruptcy. in fact, over the past three years the number of bankrupt petitions filed in bankruptcy courts have doubled. while recent data shows that the number of cases is beginning to subside, our bankruptcy judges remain hard at work. they are critical to the

operation of our federal bankruptcy courts. the important bankruptcy reforms congress passed in 2005, for example, called on judges to do more to help prevent bankruptcy abuse. and large conflicts, chapter 11 cases, like the recently filed megacase of airlines is time sensitive for our bankrupt judges. in the last congress, the bill would extend temporary judgeships. the house passed that bill but it did not pass the senate. as a result several temporary judgeships are in danger of unable to be refilled if there is a vacancy but the need for bankruptcy judges remains high. i introduced the legislation under consideration with the ranking member of the courts, commercial subcommittee of the judiciary committee, steve cohen, the chairman of that subcommittee, howard coble, and the ranking member of the full judiciary committee, john conyers. this bill permits 23 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in

judicial districts throughout the country to be filled if there is a judgeship vacancy during those districts during the next five years as a result of a judge's death, removal, retirement or resignation. congress should ensure there are enough bankruptcy judges to handle the increased caseloads as a result of the recession. but congress should also conserve federal resources and conduct periodic oversight of judicial caseloads. h.r. 1021 authorizes a five-year extension which preserves congress' ability to reassess the need for bankruptcy judges in a few years. time is of the essence. i urge the senate, also, to act quickly on this measure so that our bankruptcy system may continue to operate with speed and efficienty. i want to thank the bill's co-sponsors for their bipartisan support and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. kong kong and i appreciate -- mr. conyers: and i appreciate the excellent description of the chairman, lamar smith, on 1021, the temporary bankruptcy judgeships extension act.

this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation. extending by five years the authorizations for 30 temporary bankruptcy judges in more than 20 judicial districts around the country. i might point out that we're not adding bankruptcy judges, and members of the house, that's what we ought to be doing, really, instead of just continuing the same number, we need more. why? because bankruptcy judges are needed more than ever. the bankruptcy filings have increased during the worst economic downturn the nation has experienced since the great

depression. because long-term high unemployment rates and reduced incomes have sent more people into the bankruptcy court. because of the continuing mortgage foreclosure crisis which have affected so many people, and the increasingly onerous credit card obligations and the sky high student loans that are being collected on and the uninsured medical debt. last year 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed representing more than 8% increase over the prior years. and so two of the nation's largest automobile manufacturers in detroit, general motors and chrysler, filed for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11.

these two cases alone involved billions of dollars of substance, tens of thousands of workers, thousands of auto dealers and thousands of creditors located in all parts of our nation. last month american airlines filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief. and the national bookstore chain borders filed last month. a third factor must be kept in mind that while we maintain the status quo, more needs to be done. bankruptcy courts have been performing admirably but under critical strain and so the bankruptcy courts' -- court's work load increases but the

judicial resources are in fact diminishing. and that's why we're authorizing new judicial membership in the bankruptcy courts in the coming year, if everything works out as we anticipate. right now, though, we merely ask the house of representatives to support the bill that i and chairman smith have co-sponsored which would continue the new judges that are on the bench but will not add any more. i urge your support for the additional judge shms and reserve the balance of my time -- judgeships and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: yes. i would like to now yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. hank johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. ranking member. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1021, the temporary bankruptcy judges extension act of 2011. sponsored by my good friend, representative smith of texas, who is also the chair of the judiciary committee which i am pleased to serve on. and i would point out how ironic it is because we are now in the 336th day of this iranian of the tea party --

reign of the tea party republican party which is linked with the in a er toious grover norquist -- with the notorious grover norquist and his tax pledge. his pledge to not raise taxes. we're getting ready, mr. speaker, to get to the end of this year and we still have 160 million americans at risk for suffering a massive or i'll say a tax increase, $1,000 a person on average, maybe about -- i don't know how many millions of dollars that that will take out of consumers' pockets. and i don't hear grover

norquist or the tea party republicans crying about that. if it's the middle class, the working people tax increase, it's ok. if it is the top 1% making over $1 million a year, then can't touch this. well, i think the american people know that it's hammer time out here. it's time for there to be fairness, justice and fairness for all under the law. and it's ironic because we need these bankruptcy court judges' tenures to be extended as this act would allow because there's going to be more bankruptcies

filed, just $1,000 can push a person over the edge in terms of solvency is concerned. people are now just living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth, trying to determine whether or not we're going to pay the light bill or whether or not we're going to get the medication that we need in order to be healthy. people are deciding whether or not to pay the gas bill or whether or not they're going to be able to eat more than ramen noodles every night for the month. and so $1,000 means a lot. it may not mean a lot to a millionaire, one of those top 1% that my tea party republican friends so heartily support,

but it will hurt the little man and woman. and their families. especially at christmas time. so, at a time when the corporate chief tans are getting their bonuses, multimillion-dollar bonuses based on increased profits, we're still left on december 6, people are worried about whether or not they're going to suffer a tax increase on january 1. and so let's not impose a average $1,000 -- actually $1,500, let's not impose the

threat of a $1,500 tax increase on the middle -- middle class and working people by failing to do what we should have done much earlier, no reason why we have not done this, why we have not expanded the payroll tax cut that was enacted last year. let's keep that $1,500 in the pockets of the average middle class family, let's try to keep down the need for people to go into bankruptcy court. let's at some point let it expire, the number of bankruptcy court judges temporarily serving. and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1021 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 479, adopting house resolution 479 if ordered and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2471. the first electronic vote will be cubblingted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the vote vote on house resolution 479 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 95, house resolution

479, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 10, to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect also in joint resolution of approval is enacted into law and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236, the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the

yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235, the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is a vote for -- is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, to suspend the rules and pass h.r.

2471 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 211, h.r. 2471, a bill to amend section 2710 of title 18, united states code, to clarify the videotape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the internet. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 303 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 303, the nays are 116, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s.j. 22. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate joint resolution 22, joint resolution to grant the consent of

congress to an amendment to the compact between the states of missouri and illinois, providing that bonds issued by the bistate agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from texas move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution as amended? mr. gohmert: yes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. gohmert: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks including extraneous materials on s.j.res. 22 as amended currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. gohmert: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: the founding fathers did not believe the federal government should try to solve every problem in the country. instead they believed that local problems should have local solutions. this system of federalism became the bedrock of the constitution. one particular aspect of the federal system is found in the compact clause of the constitution, the clause recognizes agreements or contracts that states make among themselves. with congressional approval when necessary. today, the approximate -- there are approximately 200 active interstate compacts addresses a variety of issues that range from environmental and energy policy to natural resources to traffic and transportation. rather than wait for a one-size-fits-all program from washington, d.c., the constitution allows states to solve these kinds of problems for themselves. in 1949, missouri and illinois

formed a compact to key ate the bistate. mr. conyers: the house is not in order. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. gohmert: thank you. in 1949, missouri and illinois formed a compact to create the bistate development agency, the samente's mission is to facilitate and coordinate economic and infrastructure development in the st. louis metropolitan area. among other projects, the agency runs the public transportation system in st. louis. the agency does not have taxing authority but it may issue bonds. for example, in the 1960's, the agency sold bonds to finance construction of the tram to the top of the gateway arch which it operates today. the compact allows the agency

to sell 30-year bonds, last year both states adopted legislation to amend the compact and allow the agency to issue 40-year bonds. in addition to other capital improvements, the agency can use revenue from the 40-year bonds to support the city arch river 2015 initiative. the purpose of the city arch river 015 is to better connect downtown st. louis with the gateway arch and the jefferson national park. the project also involves building elevated walkways across the river to illinois. senate jonet -- joint resolution 2 gives congressional approval to this amendment. the judiciary committee marked up its companion, house joint resolution 70, on september 1. the senate joint resolution contains one amendment, regarding the effective date.

with this amendment, senate joint resolution 22 will be effective upon the date of enactment. in conclusion i'm pleased to see this feature of our federalist system at work. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and i look forward toits swift passage. with that, i reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman -- mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: members of the house, under the constitution, article 1, section 10, clause 3, these kinds of compacts, interstate compacts must be ratified by the house of representatives. and this joint resolution 22

gives congress -- gives congressional approval to an agreement between missouri and illinois to amend the interstate compact establishing the bistate development agency. my colleague on the judiciary, judge gohmert, has expertly described what it is that brings us here, but i would merely add that the agency, the congressionally approved interstate compact establishing the bistate development agency in 1950 serves as the primary provider of the public transportation for the st. louis metropolitan area. it also develops, maintains,

owns, and operates bridges, airports, wharves, docks, grain elevators, industrial parks, parking facilities, refuse and waste handling facilities as well as fuel energy, air, water, rail, or commodity storage areas. also there is a -- also, there is a 40-year maximum maturity period for bonds and other financial instruments which will allow the agency to finance projects for longer periods of time. and so, i congratulate my colleague from st. louis, william lacy clay, distinguished member from missouri, whose father was in on the first interstate compact and now we're proud that he and

other of his colleagues from both -- from missouri and illinois are supporting this senate joint resolution 22. i urge its favorable consideration and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: madam speaker, we're prepared to close. so i'll reserve the remainder of our time until then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'd like to yield the distinguished gentleman from st. louis, mr. clay, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, and, madam speaker, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and the chairman and rank member of the subcommittee for their leadership and for moving this

critical resolution. i'm proud to have introduced the house version of this joint resolution and it accomplishes two very good things. s.j.s remain 22 approves an important amendment to a compact between two states and as was mentioned before, in 19 49, missouri and illinois entered into an agreement to foster regional economic development through excellence in transportation. the compact created the bistate development agency. congress approved it and has approved several amendments over the last six decades. the agency was known -- now known as metro operates the same metropolitan regions public transportation system. it has more than 2,400 employees and carries over 55 million passengers each year. this resolution approves a

small but crucial change to the bi-state compact. both state legislatures have passed it and both governors have signed it. this is a necessary and good amendment and there's no negative impact to the nation or the state. as such, congress should approve it. this resolution also enables the congress to fulfill one of its constitutional duties and i agree with my good friend, mr. gohmert, that congress should not overstep its authority. while we do not always agree on the limits of that power, we agree on this resolution and on the constitutional authority for it. article 1, section 10, clause 3 of the constitution says that no state shall without the con sents of congress enter into an

agreement or compact with another state. the framers of the constitution require that congress would have to approve these agreements to protect the interests and rights of the other states. this also protects the rights of the citizens within the states that are party to the compact by providing federal oversight. this clause was a compromise, there were those who wanted to give the federal government greater power over the states, including the authority to regulate, to negate state laws. others felt very strongly that this would be overly nationalist and broad. the constitutional convention, rather than giving the federal government complete control over everything or nothing, compromised. they compromised for the good of the nation, they granted the

federal government blanket authority over some areas. they also limited the federal government's authority in others. and they require congressional approval for agreements between the states. this compromise, one of many that formed our great country, demonstrates that two opposing sides who each feel passionately about their point of view can come together and compromise for the good of the nation. they each put aside their well-intentioned and strongly held belief that they were completely correct and that the other side was completely wrong. and found a way to work out the differences. each gave up something they held dear in order to achieve a higher good. that was the creation of a strong nation, a nation that

would endure. madam speaker, there is a lesson here, a 224-year-old lesson, for us who serve in congress today. and once again i thank the chairman and ranking member and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we're prepared to close so we'll reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield to the distinguished the gentlelady from houston, texas, a senior member of the committee, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you. let me thank the chairman very much. and i want to applaud mr. gohmert and the ranking member

and my colleague from missouri and echo the comments of mr. conyers on his father, but also the stellar work that he is doing as a member of the delegation. we can always count on missouri to test the constitution and to ask the united states to do what is right. so i am rising to support this compact and frankly i want to really embrace it because it is maybe one aspect of legislation, madam speaker, that we are actually bipartisan and supporting it without hesitation. i frankly believe that the federal government should not overreach as it relates to compacts that have been between states, but i do think that regulation is key and crucial to give states extra leverage. so let me congratulate mr. clay and i look forward to supporting this legislation. i will add as well that i imagine the compact, when i

think of bonds i think the of opportunities for building -- i think of fuents for building, uses resources to restore and by the very nature of that, madam speaker, we're talking about creating jobs. so i add another applause to this particular legislation coming out of the judiciary committee because for once among many bills that we have been debating from the judiciary committee this bill might enhance opportunities for jobs. i think had of bonds, i think of jobs, i think of utilization of funds from bonds as they mature and this is a good thing. i'm sad to say that in the course of the time that we've spent maybe over the last three weeks when we could have actually engaged in reasonable debate on how we raise the payroll tax, how we extend the payroll tax cut and how do we extend the unemployment benefits we have not been able to do that. so let me just share my

assessment of the folk who are needing unemployment benefits. personal savings have gone, family savings have gone, they've exhausted the 401-k's and they have tapped every other fungible amount of dollars that they might have, maybe even to the kiddies' savings account that started with 25 cents, leaving many individuals in this harmonious, humble holiday time desperate, desperate for a job, desperate for assistance, desperate for being able to pay their mortgage, desperate for paying their rent and, madam speaker, maybe we should also say, desperate in getting one more allotment of food stamps. maybe we're not aware that there are 46 million families on food stamps and most of them wait all the way to the exhaustion of those food stamps, find themselves before the next opportunity for food

stamps, literally drinking water, making tea and eating crackers. there was an expose or story on this just recently on one of our cable stations. families waiting until 12:00 midnight to watch and see if their account had in it the amount of money they needed to enter a grocery store to feed their children. so i don't believe that we can leave this sacred and august institution without, one, providing relief on extending the payroll tax cut, giving $1,000 and $1,500 to the american working class. and clearly i don't believe that we can leave without providing for unemployment. every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields $1.52 in economic growth and it at least 200,000 jobs will be lost if republicans block the extension of the unemployment

insurance. if fact -- in fact, frankly i know that scruge would not find a place of comfort in this house. mr. conyers, we have always risen to the occasion of helping the most desperate, whether it has been unk franklin roosevelt in world war ii where he had to put the am sellers back to bork, -- work, whether it was when our president had so stop the bleeding with the $800 billion stimulus, we have always risen to be able to find a way to move our economy. and if we would tell the truth, we would see that our economy is percolating alone. so in the tribute of president obama who speaks today in kansas, in the same place that president teddy roosevelt spoke about opportunity for americans, i'm asking for the members of congress to come to the floor and give opportunities for americans. i close by saying to my friends , there are many good friends who are running for president.

many of us have worked with them. and any time an american wants to offer them he was -- them self to serve this country, i have no angst with them, no matter how much i disagree with their policies. but let me be very clear. as a child that grew up poor, lived with neighbors who were poor, not in our minds but certainly by our economics, i want to make the record very clear. poor children have role models because poor families get up every day and go to work. and the solution to poor children being best that they can be is not a donald trump apprenticeship and it sure isn't to get rid of the working janitors who are supporting their families and put the poor children to work. so i hope that we can do better than that, madam speaker, and, mr. conyers, and get back to work and make sure we extend the payroll tax for working families and let's extend the

unemployment insurance for the 99ers. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from -- mr. conyers: madam speaker, i would like to yield our remaining time to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, all of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, and i thank the representative from michigan for the opportunity to speak to this measure. and it's really -- to really show concern, express concern about in order ant time that we're spending on -- in order ant time that we're spending on measures. the american people are asking us to set priorities here that focus upon job creation. they're demanding that this body focus on jobs and helping rebuild our economy. instead we seem to be spending ours debate -- hours debating regulatory and bureaucratic measures that are flawed and

would dramatically undermine the ability of our government to protect that air that we breathe and that water that we drink. instead i would suggest that our time be better spent focusing on putting more money in the pockets of american workers, empowering our middle class and enabling them -- mr. smith: will the gentleman yield? -- mr. gohmert: will the gentleman yield? mr. tonko: yes. mr. gohmert: thank you. if we'd be better off doing those things, we'd be glad to suspend this and drop it right now. we'll be glad to do that. i'll make that offer. mr. tonko: well, madam speaker, might i suggest that during this holiday season, as members struggle to -- or the american people struggles to pay bills, that raise from gas bills to groceries, that are required to their mortgages, again, the focus should be on job creation. and the payroll tax holiday is

nearing its expiration. and this body should act to extend that tax cut for hard working middle class american families. the failure to do so would result in job losses, a reduction in economic activity and higher taxes for many families when they can least afford it. so, my suggestion here is to stop wasting time on less important priorities and start focusing on creating jobs and standing up for our middle class, enabling them to strengthen their purchasing power and to enable our economic recovery, to be as vital and strong as possible. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. just in closing comment, i've come to know mr. clay, my friend across the aisle, and

hold him in very high regard. and i appreciate very much his comments earlier about what this compact means to illinois' -- illinois and to missouri. i know mr. clay has been a leading proponent of this happening and i really very much appreciate his comments. this will not provide jobs across the country but it solves a problem. it will ease things so that, for those who states so jobs should be easier, and i was totally serious when i offered my colleague was saying we were wasting our time on this, i know mr. clay and many others have spent a great deal of time on this and i didn't think the democrats that were pushing this bill so hard were wasting our time. i think it's a very legitimate use of our time. some people like to confuse the

term interstate as used in the constitution. and they want the term interstate to be expanded as it has, sometimes to apply to nothing, but activity wholly within one state. the supreme court has even given some regard to those kind of arguments. but this is not one of those cases. this is a matter that's been taken up and passed by the senate and we should pass today. it takes up a matter clearly between two states that makes it interstate, and then it is not the state of illinois or missouri coming in, begging for this federal government to take over a state responsibility. it's two states with different opinions, different concerns,

but wanting things to work together for food, coming to a solution -- for good, coming to a solution and then the federal government, since it is interstate, must recognize that compact. i think it's an appropriate thing to do. i don't think the democrats who were pushing this bill were paesing -- were wasting our time. i think it's an appropriate use of federal time and with that, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate joint resolution 22 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the joint resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: madam speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1639. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1639, an act to amend title 36, united states code, to authorize the american legion to provide guidance and leadership to the individual departments and posts of the american legion and for o'purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. mr. conyers: would the gentleman yield to me?

mr. gohmert: yes. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from tennessee, steve cohen, replace me as manager on this side. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. the gentleman from texas may resume. mr. gohmert: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i do appreciate my friend from illinois. the american legion received its federal charter in 1919 as a patriotic veterans' organization. today the legion is america's largest service -- veterans service organization with 2.5 million members. membership is available to persons who have served in the united states armed forces during wartime, including the current war on terrorism, and were honorably discharged or continue in their service. the legion's goals are to uphold and defend u.s.

constitution, promote worldwide peace and goodwill and preserve the memories of the two world wars and other conflicts fought to uphold democksthism legion also aims to submit the ties and comradeship born of service and commit the efforts of its member tosser vis to the united states. the american legion has over 14,000 local posts. the national organization is not designed to have control over all the independent posts. as the supreme court of minnesota has found, quote, local posts and state chapters are separately incorporated and the posts all have their own constitutions and bylaws. unquote. the court found there was a very limited relationship between the posts and national headquarters. the national organization's, quote, officers, guide, and manual of ceremony -- officers guide and manual of ceremonies

state, the post is able to function independently. we have been asked to specify that the national american legion may provide leadership but may not control or otherwise influence specific activities and conduct of the departments an posts. the director of the legion's national legislative commission explained the request by stating the followed. -- following. the legion wants to allow members to renew their membership and pay their dues to the national organization through the use of a credit card over the internet. currently, these dues payments flow to the national organization from our posts through our departments. we are concerned that plaintiff's lawyers would indicate that the national organization has control over those departments and posts, appearance of control may

support a crame of -- claim of liability against the national organization when a legal dispute against a post arises. senate bill s. 1639 amends the legion's federal charter as requested. our colleague, mr. altmire, introduced the house version of the bill, h r. 2369, which the judiciary committee approved by voice vote. i thank mr. altmire for his work on this legislation and am pleased to see that his bill has a remarkable 432 co-sponsors. almost unheard of. so there are things that this congress needs to be doing. there are many things that are very important that this congress does. but this is something that only the congress can do. so if we hear from other speakers that want to talk about a jobs bill, i would encourage them to go talk to

the senate about the 15 to 20 jobs bills that they are down there sitting on. i look forward to the day when the president says that this is a do-nothing congress, that he's not -- no longer half right in making that statement. the house is certainly not a do-nothing house. the senate is sitting on many bills, this is a bill that mr. altmire saw a need, has stepped up and filled that need and i appreciate his efforts in doing this. the american legion has performed a great service in bringing together veterans and i have spent a great deal of dime with -- of time with american legion posts. i am grateful that exist. this is a good bill. i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is

recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. the senate version of our bill is a bill making a minor change to the american legion. s. 1639, introduced by senator testor of montana is the senate companion of the bill introduced by the former defensiveback from the florida state seminoles, representative altmire of pennsylvania, and he did a great job of getting 432 co-sponsors. that might make this the easiest vote taken. this -- while this is not a major change to the existing charter, it will help the

american legion carry out changes under a prose -- process adopted by resolution at the national convention last year. i'm proud to join with them as just about everybody else has in this house an i support the bill and reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i yield three minutes an seven seconds to the gentleman who represents the -- the former florida state seminole player. mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman from tennessee and i thank the gentleman from texas for his kind words. there are more important things than this, the american legion would be the first to agree. but as the gentleman from texas pointed out, this is something

only the congress can do. this is an important issue for the american legion. it modernizes the charter of the american legion and clarifies the local autonomy of the local posts throughout the country this needs to be done. it is important, and it is something that we in this chamber have come together to do. it is long overdue and when i first introduced this bill in june, i started to talk with folks in this chamber and i found out that there really are things we can agree on. we spent a lot of time over the course of the year and in fact a lot of time today pointing fingers at each other, casting blame, talking about all the things we don't agree on, but for our men and women in uniform, the people who are honorably and bravely serving this country and our american veterans, we agree that they need this change and that we support them and as the gentleman from texas pointed out, according to the

congressional research service, this bill that we introduced in the house that is the companion bill to the senate bill on which we will vote today -- tomorrow, has received the most co-sponsors of any bill ever introduced in the history of the congress. 432 co-sponsors, more than any bill ever introduced in history. and it passed unanimously in the senate after it was introduced in october. and that shows there really are things we can work together on. maybe this suspect the most important thing we could be doing. but it's something we need to do. it's something we're going to do. and hopefully it will send a message on both sides of this capitol that we should come together and we should put our differences aside. and that doesn't mean we have to always agree, but at least let's work together because this bill proves we can do it. so i am proud to stand here as author of the house companion or of this bill a proud supporter of the senate bill

we'll be voting on. i'm grateful the senator took the leadership role in the senate to get this done, and i thank the gentleman from texas and i thank the gentleman from tennessee and i support this bill and urge my colleague to vote for it. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i yield back the plans of my time. the vice president: the gentleman from tennessee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: thank you madam speaker. again, mr. altmire is owed a great debt of thanks. when my friend from tennessee said this is a bipartisan bill, apparently it's the most bipartisan bill ever brought before the house, and it's wonderful that something like -- a wonderful group like the american legion could bring us together and i appreciate mr. altmire's efforts to go -- in doing that. i urge my colleagues to support passage and with that i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1639? those in favor say aye. pose pez -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1541. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1541, an act to revise the federal charter for the blue star mothers of america inc., reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair regn